I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to bring it through the FAC process sometime in the near future and I would like to get as much feedback as possible first and to see if that is even a viable possibility for this article. Any comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"number three and twenty-one on Billboard'sAdult R&B Songs and Hot R&B Songs component charts, respectively": I don't know what reviewers prefer, but I'd write this without the "respectively", with "number three on Billboard'sAdult R&B Songs and", etc.
Thank you for your help! It is always appreciated. I believe that I have addressed everything. I hope you have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just to be clear: you're now saying "peaked number three". I'd probably say "peaked at number three", but I'm not sure about this. - Dank (push to talk) 10:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out. There should be an "at" there. I somehow forgot to put it there, and I have added it. Aoba47 (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
considered "My Man" as a highlight of Bluebird of Happiness → considered "My Man" as the highlight of (same in the reception section); if the song is described as the main highlight of the album.
Only one of the reviews (South China Morning Post) names "My Man" as their favorite song while the two other reviews (Houston Chronicle and AllMusic) list it alongside a few other songs as the standouts of the album so that's why I used a rather than the.
@Aoba47: Ahh thanks for clarifying. Perhaps one of the highlights would be a good alternative then, so it aligns with the reviews. Otherwise, I don't see a problem with the usage. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"My Man" was promoted on an episode -- based on the article prose it seems like this was played on the episode and not a live performance? Perhaps it'd be better to say featured
You are correct. The song was not performed in the episode so I have used your suggestion as it is best to avoid any unnecessary confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
eponymous debut album (2000) -- since the album isn't named, I think it could be written as eponymous debut album in 2000 instead of an enclosure.
That is an excellent point. The enclosure does look weird since the album title is not put in the prose and I think your suggestion reads a lot better than the original wording. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When discussing this switch -- perhaps move or decision?
Another very good point. The word choice ("switch") does seem off to me, and I have used "decision". If you prefer "move", I would be more than happy to use that one instead though. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
while accompanied by a group of back-up dancers → while accompanied by back-up dancers
Thank you for pointing this out. Always best to be concise, and the "a group of" bit is just unnecessary and overly wordy. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: Thank you for your comments! They were very helpful, and you have helped to improve the article immensely. I hope you are having an excellent week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again. I am trying to be more patient with this peer review, and I am planning on leaving it up at least until the end of the month, but I will ping you when I bring it to the FAC level. Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be direct quotes used within ref titles ("Best Work Yet", "Pick Me Up"), and the Spotify/Apple Music refs do not seem to confirm to MOS:CONFORMTITLE. This should probably be fixed before an FAC, lest someone moan about it there, lol.
Thank you for pointing this out. It is important to make sure everything is right with punctuation, etc. with citations. It honestly makes me feel like I am back in college lol. I believe that I have revised everything, but let me know if there is anything I missed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if linking studio album in the opening sentence is necessary. There are five links in the sentence and this one seems to be causing a MOS:SOB.
That is a very good point. I would believe that a majority of readers would be familiar with what an album is on some level so the link is not really beneficial. I believe it was hold-over from earlier drafts of the article that I forgot to remove. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The lyrics are about infidelity, and were based" - Tense change mid-sentence. Perhaps this could be fixed as "Its lyrics about infidelity were based on Braxton's parents and their divorce after her father's affair"
That is a very good catch! I have revised it. I used "The lyrics" instead of "Its lyrics" as I was not sure about starting a new paragraph with "Its", but I am open to other suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It peaked at number three on the Billboard's Adult R&B Songs chart" - The use of "the" might be unnecessary with this particular sentence structure.
Unrelated to the review but glad to read Braxton left Epic Records, a horrible label in my opinion.
It is fascinating to read about different artists's experiences with Epic Records (and I hope that does not come across as crude as I have sympathy for artists who are caught in bad deals or have other issues with labels). I hope that Braxton releases another album in the future. After all that she has been through over the years, I would be curious if any of it is reflected in her music. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uproxx is italicized on its article so it could be here as well.
It might be helpful to introduce "Pick Me Up" as another track from Bluebird of Happiness, as this song does not have an article and it might not be immediately obvious to readers.
Agreed. In a previous draft, I had the song marked as a promotional single, but removed it as I could not find solid evidence to back up that description. For whatever reason, my brain just could not process how to better present this information and your suggestion helped me a lot! Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of the second paragraph of Music and lyrics should probably refer to "My Man" by name, as another song is mentioned in the preceding sentence.
"A portion of "Blind", the second single from Bluebird of Happiness, was included at the end of the video" - Just a clarification question but was a portion of the song included, or its video?
It was a portion of the song. Quick question. Do you think this information is notable enough for inclusion? It is currently sourced through the music video as a primary source, and I could not find it covered in third-party sources. If you think this information should be kept, I will add a citation to support that "Blind" was the album's second single, but I wanted to clarify this with you first. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's another sea-of-blue thing with "game show Hip Hop Squares". I think most people might be familiar with game shows so that could be the link that's removed.
I have been advised to remove "track listing" sections on prior nominations, unless there is something unusually notable about it that is discussed in prose.
Agreed. I thought it might be notable as there were two releases, but there are not different enough (i.e. remixes, etc.) to warrant mention. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chart tables should incorporate a sub-heading like "Weekly chart positions for 'My Man'", and for the Release history section it should be "Release dates and format(s) for 'My Man'"
I hope this review is helpful. Your ability to write such engaging articles about underrated songs always impresses me!--NØ08:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: Your review was very helpful! Thank you for taking the time to do it. I appreciate your kind words. I always have fun working on underrated/obscure music, and I am glad that they are engaging. I just have a quick question above about whether or not the inclusion of "Blind" in the "My Man" music video is notable given its lack of coverage in third-party sources as that is something I noticed while addressing points made in your review. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are most welcome and this was a fun read! I think the inclusion of the bit about "Blind" is a matter of personal preference, as this does not seem to be something that drew a huge amount of coverage which would compulsorily require a mention. I think the paragraph this information is present in is small enough that including it is not distracting from the more important information.--NØ20:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you enjoyed the article! That is always great to hear. I ultimately decided to remove the information just because in my opinion, it seemed too trivial (as it was not mentioned in any reliable, third-party source) and I realized that I did not want to use the music video as a primary source to summarize just a single moment. In retrospect, I can see that being a bit odd (as the video should either be used as the primary source for complete summary or not, and I prefer to not use music videos in that way, and I do not think that it is encouraged anyway). Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
